Seckler v. Pa. R. Co.

• Decision Date: 27 September 1934
• Docket Number: No. 81.,81.
• Citation: 174 A. 501
• Parties: SECKLER v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.
• Court: New Jersey Supreme Court

174 A. 501

SECKLER

v. PENNSYLVANIA R. CO. et al.

No. 81.

Court of Errors and Appeals of New Jersey.

Sept. 27, 1934.

Syllabus by the Court.

There is a distinction, long recognized by the courts of this state, between the degree of care required by a common carrier, with respect to the safe carriage of its passengers, and that required in the construction and maintenance of its station and the approaches thereto. In the first instance, the requirement calls for the exercise of a high degree of care, and in the latter, which involves the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff in the present case, such ordinary care and precaution as would make the premises reasonably safe for the use of passengers.

We must consider the degree of care which was exercised for the plaintiff's safety, rather than the degree of success resulting therefrom.

While there is always the possibility that passengers in railroad stations might be injured by some careless or wanton act of a fellow passenger or stranger, it does not necessarily follow that the railroad company is responsible, unless such act should have been reasonably anticipated.

The CHANCELLOR, Justice PERSKIE, and Judges VAN BUSKIRK and DEAR, dissenting.

Appeal from Supreme Court.

Action by Theresa Seckler against the Pennsylvania Railroad Company and another. Judgment for defendants, and plaintiff appeals.

Affirmed.

Kalisch & Kalisch, of Newark, for appellant.

Wall, Haight, Carey & Hartpence, of Jersey City, for respondents.

HETFIELD, Judge.

This suit was instituted to recover damage for personal injuries received by the plaintiff as the result of respondents' alleged negligence. The facts, which are undisputed, show that the plaintiff, who resided in Irvington, and was engaged in business in New York City, had used the tube trains daily from and to Newark, for a period of about three years prior to the accident, which occurred on the morning of November 1, 1930, at about 8:10 o'clock. It was her custom to board the train at the Park Place Station, in Newark, each day about this time. It also appears that between 8 and 9 o'clock in the morning, and 5 and 6 in the evening of each day, a greater number of passengers go to and from the trains than at any other time, and that those periods are referred to as "rush hours." On the morning in question, as she was about to enter the station doorway, which faced Saybrook place, the door, which swung outward, was thrown open by persons leaving the station, causing it to strike her right knee, and injuring same to such an extent that it required considerable medical attention thereafter. At the close of the entire case, the court directed a verdict in favor of the defendants, and judgment was entered accordingly, and this appeal was taken, which only involves the Pennsylvania Railroad Company, as the appellant conceded before the direction, that there was no proof to the effect that the other defendant in any way controlled or maintained the station in question.

The plaintiff urges a reversal on the ground that the uncontradicted facts would support a finding by the jury that the defendant had failed to use reasonable care to provide a safe entrance to the station for its passengers, in that (1) the "rush hour" was a daily occurrence; (2) the same doors were used for exit and entrance purposes; (3) persons were unable to see clearly the interior of the station through the glass of the doors; (4) no guards were furnished to control the crowds passing through the entrance.

There is a distinction, long recognized by the courts of this state, between the degree of care required of a common carrier, with respect to the safe carriage of its passengers, and that required in the construction and maintenance of its station and the approaches thereto. In the first instance, the requirement calls for the exercise of a high degree of care, and in the latter, which involves the duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff in the present case, such ordinary care and precaution as would make the premises reasonably safe for the use of passengers. This doctrine is followed in Dotson v. Erie R. Co., 68 N. J. Law, 679, 54 A. 827; Mason v. Erie R. Co., 75 N. J. Law, 521, 68 A. 105; Foley v. Brunswick Traction Co., 66 N. J. Law, 637, 50 A. 340; Feil v. West Jersey & Seashore R. Co., 77 N. J. Law, 502, 72 A....